Abuse of Power In Connecticut Courts
Judges have built may layers of
protection around themselves that include may way to hide their
actions from public view. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that the
courts must be completely open unless their is a very strong reason
to close them. Essentially the bar is pretty high - but the state
court ignore this U.S. SJC ruling and do what they want anyway.
In CT, the judicial review council brought 5 counts against the
CT Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sullivan for
violations of Canon law.
In a nutshell, Back in April '06, Chief Justice Sullivan
privately notified Governor Rell that he was retiring 2 years early
and in mid Court-session. The Governor promptly nominated justice
Zarella as his replacement following their meeting. Sullivan
then had the clerk's office delay the release of a ruling because he
felt it would be controversial and hurt the appointment of Justice
Zarella as his replacement for Chief Justice. One of the other
Justices found out and notified the Judicial Committee about an hour
before they were to appoint Zarella. The Governor withdrew her
nomination of Zarella and he also withdrew as a candidate until an
investigation sorted out the details.
The ruling that Sullivan thought was controversial had to do
with public access to court records and the FOIA. When first
decided, the ruling of 5 justices favored public access to
records in a 3 to 2 decision, Zarella favoring Hiding
records from the public, but he was out voted. Sullivan, as chief
justice, called for an En Banc review or review by the full
panel of the supreme court, 7 justices. This is not uncommon in a
split decision, but what was uncommon is that Sullivan called on
several retired judges, who typically sit in on cases only when the
full time judge cannot. The en banc review reversed the decision
and ruled in favor of hiding records from the public, with a 4 to 3
Now, the heads of the Judicial Committee subpoenaed Sullivan to
testify before the Legislators to investigate his actions and
possible impeachment proceedings. Sullivan agreed, told the
Attorney General that he would honor the subpoena and appear. At
the same time Sullivan had his lawyer file a motion to Quash the
subpoena behind their back. The lawyer filed the motion in
Waterbury court, where Sullivan was and is now presiding as a
retired judge; with a Judge that served with Sullivan for years.
(Waterbury is the same origin as former Governor Rowland and where
most politician seem to serve more "time" than serve the public).
The subpoena was quashed before the Attorney General or Judicial
Committee were served and had to give oral argument without
having read the motion or briefs Sullivan's attorney filed.
The Legislators want to put off an investigation until after the
elections in November.
The Governor has established a committee to review the FOIA and it's
application to the judicial branch records and the judicial branch
has created a task force to review the release of public information
and other complaints and problems in the judicial branch. You can
Email the judicial branch with complaints at :
is disgusting and vile behavior by a judge Chris.
using publicity and the federal court.
have our sympathy and support. I am now also fighting for access to
my children due to an order of supervised visitation cause by the
ex-spouse of my efforts to criticize and reform family courts.
judge have no ethics and must be removed from the bench when they
use their power to hurt children as revenge against us for fighting
for justice and what is best for child.
Science has proven TWO parents are SUPERIOR for children and we must
get the entire judicial system to recognize this and be accountable.
Warren Farrell’s training video for judges will be out soon and will
be good evidence and education for the percentage of judge who
really want to do what is best for children.
fear that half or less even care.
up the good work as you are not just helping yourself but thousands
of other fathers who do not have the resources to fight this
will win this fight and reform family court. It is only a matter of
time and effort because, not one are we right by a LONG SHOT but
because we are fighting people who have no morals.
Exposure to the public is their soft underbelly.
July 19, 2006
FA01-0075660 Christopher Kennedy v. Leanna Kennedy
Patricia Swords at Rockville Family Court has ordered that both
Judicial complaints filed against her be sealed from the
public and placed in the family court folder of the complainer,
with no statements of justification. The folder is still open
to the public. The complaints can now only be reviewed by
judges and other court officials, the public has no access.
have the Judicial Branch hiding records from the
public, protecting judges from public knowledge of their
abuse and retaliating against people who complain by creating a
bias within the court against the complainer. The Judicial
Review Council is not part of the Judicial Branch, it is a
separate agency which make judges and court officials as much
"the public" as any other individual.
The Judicial review council allows judges to make complaints
public if they wish, but nowhere does the wording allow for a
judge to decide who the public is or partially seal the
record to the general public and allow only certain individuals
access, such as other judges. She has compromised the Case
folder for any judge that may preside over this case. This is
judge Swords way of saying "Look what this guy did to me" to her
fellow judges while protecting herself from public scrutiny.
complaints were filed when judge Swords ordered that The Father,
Christopher Kennedy be held to Criminal court orders in a case
that was disposed of. Following his acquittal, all charges were
disposed of and his record was cleared. With no allegations of
harm or risk to the children, no allegation of an unfit parent
Judge Swords terminated all contact with the father and his
children, two days before Christmas. The hearing was scheduled
in 48 hour allowing no service to the father. Judge Swords
declared that the criminal court orders were still in affect and
that statutory provisions of 46b-56 & 56a to protect parental
rights or the requirement to file a parenting plan will not be
followed. She has declared that there is no harm is keeping the
children fatherless and refuses to hear any motions to modify
custody or parental access for the father. The judge has
ignored a Federal Complaint and Restraining order filed against
her in Federal Court and continues to deny the father access or
transfer this case out of Rockville.
refuses to hear any motions filed by the father regarding
contempt, change of venue or the removal of the GAL, which has
been pending for 8 months, yet allows and grants motions filed
by the GAL and the mother.